moving to a results-based framework for forest practices -- the b.c. experience -- ian miller, rpf...
TRANSCRIPT
Moving to a results-based framework for forest practices
-- the B.C. experience --
Ian Miller, RPF
OIFQ Colloquium; Trois-Rivieres, PQ
June 21, 2007
A few reminders…..
“Forestry is not rocket science, it is much more complicated than that.”
Dr. Fred Bunnell, University of BC, 1999
“Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them made”
Otto von Bismarck, Germany, late 1800’s
Overview Historical context and timeline Getting started – the building blocks The process – how we did it The product – what we created (briefly) Implementation – lessons learned Public perception and response Challenges for government, industry & others
British Columbia’s forests 60 million hectares of forest lands About 65% of the BC land base About 95% of forests are publicly-owned 13.8% of the BC land base is fully protected A further 14% in special management zones Less than 1% of the forest land base is
harvested each year
Historical context and timeline 1978-1995: Forest practices by contract 1991: Forest Resources Commission 1995: Forest Practices Code (FPC) legislation 1998: FPC planning streamlined 2000-2001: RBC framework and pilot projects 2001: new administration with commitment to
results-based forestry 2002: RBC public discussion paper 2004: Forest and Range Practices Act (FRPA) 2005-2007: Transition from FPC to FRPA
Getting started – the RBC building blocks Political will and direction “SMART” legislation and de-regulation Proven record of good forest practices Mature resource professions Proof of the need for change Internal and external understanding and
support
Building blocks (con’t) Lessons/advice from other jurisdictions Proof-of-concept testing Informed and engaged stakeholders Legal principles for RBC Dedicated cross-government teams Agreed-to goals for RBC
Goals for FRPAReduce• Cost
• Administrative Complexity
Strengthen
• Global Competitiveness• C&E Regime
• Freedom to Manage
Maintain
• High Environmental Standards
• Public acceptance• Balancing social, economic &
environmental issues
• Timber supply
Resource Capacity
FRPA
Major elements of the process Policy teams – credible experts Managerial and executive oversight teams Project plan – thorough, but flexible Public discussion paper Open-house forums, technical forums Fully engaged forest industry stakeholders Dedicated legal counsel Business flow mapping (iterative)
FPC business flow map
Start
SDMExpectations
LicenseeSubmits draft
FDPsign and seal
by an RPF and licensee authorized signature
(minor amendments)
OPRassessments
First Nations consultation
MOF StaffRecommends approval FDP/
amendment
FDPamendment
process
LicenseePrepare and submit SP
(sign & sealed)
LicenseeSubmits
road layout and design
Cutting permit
issuanceprocess
Road permit
issuanceprocess
SDMConsistent with plan?
SDMSP content sufficient?
FDPamendment
process
Yes
No No
SDMReject SP
with rationale
LicenseeConducts harvesting
activities & on block roads
Yes
Harvest activities
compliant?
C&EActivities
No
LicenseePerforms
reforestation activities with
documentation
CP deleted
Yes
Regendelay met?
No
Silviculture and soil activities
compliant?Yes
LicenseeEstablishes free growing
stand (declared)
Yes
Accept free growing?
LicenseeEstablishes free growing stand
(declared)
C&EActivities
Yes
Finish
SDMConsistent with plan?
FDPamendment
process
No
SDMRL & D content
sufficient?
Yes
LicenseeBuilds and
maintains off block
roadways
Yes
No
SDMReject with
rationale
MoFField
inspection
Activities compliant?
No
No
GovernmentContinued obligation
Yes
Finish
Permanent deactivation
?
Is the road still
required?No
SDMGives exemption under section 64
Yes
LicenseePrepares
permanent road deactivation prescription
Yes
Deactivation plan consistent
with plan?
No
Prescription require
approval?
SDMApprove
based on 5 factors?
Yes
LicenseePermanently deactivate
No
YesNo
Deactivation acceptable?
MoFField
inspection
No
MoFRoad permit
deletedYes
Finish
No
LicenseeAdvertizing
for review and comment
-Known information
LicenseeConsiders comments(revise and
submit)
MOFReview
FDP
SDMApproves FDP
(41.1 (a&b)
MoFDiscuss
issues with Licensee
LicenseeRequest
submission to SDM FDP/amendment
SDMReject with rationale
No
No
No
Public Review and
comment(Agency referrals)
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
October 1, 2002
FRPA business flow map
Othersources
Forest and RangePractices Act
Defined Values
ManagementRegimes
(as defined inAct and
regulations)
Outcomes
JointManagementCommittee
(JMC)
EffectivenessEvaluation
(E2)
PracticesAdvisoryCouncil
Joint SteeringCommittee
(JSC)
AACDetermination
Minister ofForests
Cabinet /Legislature
PublicReports
State of theForestReport
Example of a FRPA Business Map
LicenseeActivities
Enactchanges
Enactchanges
C & EProcess
Recommendchanges
Recommendchanges
Technicalsupport
Recommendchanges
Establishingpriorities
Recommendchanges
LicenseePrepares
FSP
MinisterApproves
FSP
What is the Forest and Range Practices Act (FRPA)? Governs forest and range activities on Crown
lands Protects forest values Creates efficiencies Encourages innovation Backed by rigorous compliance and
enforcement
Functional Architecture
Moving from FPC to FRPA “command and control” TO “results based” “development plans” TO “stewardship plans” “Gov’t approves” TO “professional certifies” “Gov’t approved site plans” TO “professionally
prepared site plans” “MoE review of draft plans” TO “MoE identifies
areas, objectives and guidance as input to plans” “Cookbook forestry” TO “professional reliance” “Due diligence”: from mitigating factor TO
“complete defence
Legal Realm
Resource statutes e.g. FRPA Professional
statutes
Scientific / technical knowledge(Underpins societal expectations, and
some aspects of the legal realm)
Common law: professional negligence
Common law: civil liability
Societal expectations
Non-Legal Realm
Legal and non-legal framework: the “iceberg” analogy
Professional statutes Self-regulation and exclusive right to practice
High standards and close scrutiny
What would reasonably be expected of peers?
Peers will be experts
Professional reliance Collaboration of 4 professional associations “the practice of accepting and relying upon
the decisions and advice of professionals who accept responsibility and can be held accountable for the decisions they make and the advice they give”
PR = codes of ethics + standards of conduct and competence + professional principles + common law + due diligence
What has worked well? Co-operation among government agencies
Multi-stakeholder implementation teams Monitoring: internal and external Focus on problem finding and solving
“FRPA…has the potential to become a world-leading system of forest regulation”
-Forest Practices Board
What has worked well? (con’t) Effective support materials:
Training packages Workshops for professionals Statutory interpretations Guidance on administrative processes Technical guidance (i.e. terrain stability, stream
crossings)
What has not worked well? unrealistic timelines Insufficient co-ordination with large forest
policy changes in pricing and tenure Legislation drafting before policy analysis
complete “Rules of engagement” with industry Transition provisions not fully thought-out “Culture shift” - understanding our new roles
Public perception and response FRPA not on the general public’s radar screen Limited, but negative, press releases from
environmental organizations Government increasing communications
planning for FRPA “Bite-sized” messages, regularly released Increasing complaints to Forest Practices
Board, especially on review and comment
The challenges ahead Improve communications to, and
understanding by, all stakeholders and public Facilitate culture shift, especially among
professionals in industry and government Move transition past stewardship plan
preparation into implementation of practices Close the “design – implement – monitor –
redesign” loop
Summary: Lessons we learned Guiding principles are vital Consultation is critical Need experienced and cunning policy developers Transparent dispute resolution mechanism is
essential If you can’t map it, it won’t work The technical aspects are the simplest Keep your eyes on the prize!
Where to find out more? Legislation, training materials and
effectiveness evaluations:
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/code/ “Expectations that affect the management of
public forest and range lands in BC – looking outside the legislation” a discussion paper:
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/code/training/frpa/looking.html